No Offence Intended

In the United Kingdom, there is a way of life, an identity, a culture and our Laws.

Our way of life reflects our culture which is documented by our Laws.

We call ourselves British.

As our way of life changes and our culture and understanding improves, laws are passed documenting those improvements moving us forward as a society.

Our Laws are rarely repealed and there is a ratchet effect as we try to ensure that our society becomes more accommodating, understanding and healthy for all.

When people from a different cultures come to live in this country we make them welcome and allow them space to retain their identity, respecting their culture. As long as they do not break or undermine our Laws and our culture, which are, after all, changing and evolving to benefit all.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

If someone steals they are breaking our Laws which is an affront to our society. This cannot be tolerated and if allowed would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

There is a religion that has a set of laws and teachings governing that religion. These laws and teachings are fundamental to that religion.

The written law of that religion threatens death or violence to anyone who wants to leave that religion. If threats of death or violence either written or spoken are made, our Law is being broken. Death threats and threats of violence are against our Law. This cannot be tolerated and if allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

The written law of that religion openly discriminates against women. Gender discrimination is against our Law. This cannot be tolerated and if allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

That same religion allows for underage marriage. Underage marriage is against our Law. This cannot be tolerated if allowed it would damage our culture, way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

That same religion condones the mutilation of the genitals of children. This is against our Law and cannot be tolerated. If allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

That same religion teaches that, the taking as sex slaves of those young people who are not of that religion is acceptable. This is against our Law and cannot be tolerated. If allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

The most humane slaughter of an animal is a requirement of our Law, it is not practiced by that same religion. This is against our Law and cannot be tolerated. If allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

That religion condones the taking of more than one wife. This is against our Law and cannot be tolerated. If allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

A number of Councils have been set up by this religion. These Councils dispense judgements on individuals based on their laws and covering marital and estate matters. These judgements undermine our Laws and cannot be tolerated. If allowed it would damage our culture, our way of life and our achievements.

This is not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

We cannot tolerate exemptions from our Laws otherwise there will be a breakdown in society. We cannot turn a blind eye to our Laws or there will be a breakdown in society. We cannot ignore our Laws or there will be a breakdown in society.

This not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

Social responsibility is far more important than social justice. To be part of a society requires social responsibilities without which there will be no justice.

This not meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation for all.

Our Laws must be upheld, for they uphold our culture, which upholds our way of life, which supports our achievements and ultimately benefits society for all.

They are what make us British.

The question then is ‘Do you want to be British?’

These are my words and are therefore inadequate. But you get the idea. Put this out as a Pamphlet or a Leaflet.

It will not be meant to offend but is a rational, common sense expectation.

About The Author

Related Posts

14 Comments

Hugo
on June 20, 2018 at 7:55 am

In addition – Sharia Bonds.

These were introduced under David Cameron, by the then Business Secretary Sajid Javid.

Government owned buildings have been sold off under this scheme, including the one which MPs are likely to occupy while the houses of parliament are being renovated. They probably will not be permitted to consume alcohol, and I guess will be served exclusively Halal meat.

Javid claims to be secular, however this significant boost to Islam that he implemented does indicate otherwise. Any offspring of a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim, by convention. If Javid has renounced Islam then that is the worst possible crime, for which under Sharia law there is the death penalty.

Of course he can pretend to have renounced it, while in fact promoting Islamic Bonds etc, and jailing the critics of Islam. Muslims will know that it is a pretence – deceiving infidels even has a name: “taqiyya”.

Those who are destroying western civilisation will happily drop Theresa May if she were to wake up to the reality of Islam, and install Javid as PM.

Kim, as an author I completely ‘get’ the device – your repetition of “This is not meant to offend”

However, the right to give offence is an important right which we must not relinquish.

Three official complaints about hate speech by the same person with none of them resulting in a conviction should get the complainant an automatic long-term of imprisonment (or the choice of being deported, if any country is stupid enough to accept such professional offence-takers).

Kim, one of the issues you raise is not quite as clear-cut as you suggest:–

You say, “The most humane slaughter of an animal is a requirement of our Law, it is not practiced by that same religion. This is against our Law and cannot be tolerated.”

A recent petition sought to “End the animal cruelty laws exemptions given to UK halal and shechita abattoirs
The Government is aware of concern about meat from animals slaughtered according to religious beliefs.”

The Government have published an initial response which states that our legislature has provided for exception since 1933 having been debated in Parliament since 1875:—

“Current national regulations on religious slaughter have a long history. The issue was first debated in Parliament in 1875. The Slaughter of Animals Act 1933 introduced a legal requirement for stunning of animals prior to slaughter but contained an exemption where animals were slaughtered for consumption by Jewish and Muslim communities. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide additional protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.”

This petition currently has over 12000 signatures and needs to reach 100,000 for the matter to be debated again in Parliament. In order for the UK to deal with this and all the other matters you raise we have to overcome public inertia and disinterest.

I entirely empathise with your point that everyone in this country should be subject to the Law, equally under the Law of the Country and without exceptions. This Country has always had a deep-seated sense of fair play and we want to be fair to all, then we are all content to abide by our single regime of Law.

There should be no exceptions which allow certain sections of society to be exempt from the Law. Magna Carta decreed that even the King is subject to the Law. All we want is for our Law to be upheld and to be applied equally to All.

Thank you for your courteous comment. Simple is okjbut it has to be accurate!
There are a lot of knowledgable and experienced people using this site. Put that with our wonderful language, that allows so much imagination then we can inform and persuade.
Will is the thisd ingredient. How can wUHc0e fail?

“There should be no exceptions which allow certain sections of society to be exempt from the Law.” Too B****Y true.
I couldn’t agree more. What really irritates me in cases like this, is it’s as if animals have two levels of pain and distress. “Say a prayer, slit their throat and that’s OK?
It’s either b***y distressful, painful and disgusting or it’s not.
What did we make the law for in the first place?
Because we are humane and civilised – that’s why!

Thank you for your courteous comment. Simple is OK but it has to be accurate!
There are many knowledgeable and experienced people who visit this site. Given that and the ability to express ourselves with our wonderful language, how can we not succeed? There will be a way to reword this. I hope it doesn’t spoil the article for anyone.

Thank you for the information on the Government initial response to the petition. I seem to keep attempting to sign the petition whenever I come across the link, only to discover that I have already done so – I mustn’t have ticked the box to receive the updates!

I note the following in the response;

‘….but contained an exemption where animals were slaughtered for consumption by Jewish and Muslim communities.’

This does not let the Government off the hook in that;

1) ritually slaughtered meat from halal (not sure about shechita) abattoirs has entered mainstream food supplies and is now, more often than not, unwittingly or unwillingly consumed by non-Muslims; so exposure now is not confined to the ‘Muslim communities’.
2) aside from the inhumane methods of slaughter, the meat has been subject to religious ritual which may be contrary to many, if not most consumer’s beliefs.
3) there is (I read recently) a growing export market for halal meat from UK abattoirs to countries such as Saudia Arabia; so not only is our poor domestic livestock cruelly slaughtered seemingly for all consumers here in the UK whether we like it or not, it’s being cruelly slaughtered for the Saudis and possibly others as well!!! Surely that wasn’t part of the deal back in 1933.

Clearly the Act (or whatever) from 1933 was passed in an age when today’s state of affairs could not have been envisaged; no matter, the fact is that it now fails to offer sufficient protection to today’s animals and to today’s non-Muslim population in the UK.

My opinion is that The Act is not fit for purpose and needs urgent revision.

I wouldn’t expect my opinion to cut much ice with Theresa May or others of her ilk who purport to have a superior understanding and judgement in matters of ethics and religion.

Totally agree Kim. To my mind anyone is welcome in this country as long as they obey our laws and respect our customs. What they do in their own homes is entirely their business as long as they are not against the law – British law.

And when their home customs are different from ours, they either reform or go back to their own country. There have been defences put forward in the courts that various people, mostly eastern Europeans, have said that the crime of which they are charged would have been acceptable in their home country. If it’s not acceptable here, they should be found guilty. But are they? Or do the judges let them off, being afraid to be called racist?

An excellent article which surely no-one could argue against, unless they are not a native Brit. However all those Laws are broken by substantial numbers of the invader every single day. They need to be removed from our country.

Unfortunately such transgressions are either ignored or assisted by our own government and its servants who are supposed to uphold our Law.

Some of it servants are of the invader and could never be expected to understand or apply our Law; They need to be removed from office.

Some in our Parliament elected to uphold the Law in performing their daily duties are blatantly failing to do so. They need to be removed from office.

Some of our government ministers tasked with upholding the Law are blatantly failing to do so, including our Prime Minister. They need to be removed from office.

All those required to be removed from office need to face disciplinary proceedings for failing to do their job. Their guilt is not in doubt but they are entitled to fair hearing. The penalties they face must be severe with the options of dismissal, jail and heavy fines including confiscation of their property and pensions. They must be made an example of to deter others of their kind taking the same path. This needs to happen at all levels of government.

Nothing would surprise me, mind. She pretends to be a conservative. She pretended she was getting net migration down to the tens of thousands. She pretends to be a Prime Minister. She pretends to be delivering Brexit.